Journal of Regulatory Compliance
Amanda Scott Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2024 In June 2022, a draft of a bipartisan bicameral bill known as the American Data Privacy and Protection Act was introduced. This bill was proposed as a replacement to current laws to further protect and strengthen federal data privacy and protection regulations. This …
The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 was a story of greed. In markets where incentives lead to bad behavior, disparately affecting a great deal of society, we rely on regulatory oversight. A domino effect of decisions spanning decades resulted in a global economic disaster, but it could have been prevented with effective regulators.
In June of this year, a new California bill, which allows social media companies to be sued by state government attorneys for having features that contribute to the addiction of children to their apps, cleared the state Senate. The bill was originally brought to California’s state assembly as one that would permit parents to sue social media giants for up to $25,000 per violation but was later amended after lobbying from business and tech-industry groups. The worry that social media is able to exploit children through ads, notifications, and other features in the design that are promoting addiction has amplified since the premiere of 2020 documentary, “The Social Dilemma.” Since then, the warning that regulation was looming has quickly turned into actual movement towards regulating the actions of social media companies. The bill has since failed, a disappointing end to an initiative that could have made a real change towards keeping social media giants in check.
In October of 2021, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced it would ramp up its enforcement against corporate repeat offenders of white-collar crimes and prioritize action against individual actors to promote accountability. The new measures implemented permit the DOJ to consider all prior wrongdoing by a corporation when deciding how to resolve a new investigation. Leniency programs of the past will not be extended to wrongdoers unless all believed participants, whether employees or executives, are disclosed. There has also been a shift from financial penalties to probationary settlements, which require companies not only to admit fault and pay fines but also to improve their monitoring of employees to deter crime. This may require outside monitoring to verify compliance, which can be burdensome and expensive.
Thanks to a new FDA final rule, published in August of this year, Americans can soon purchase specific hearing aids over-the-counter (OTC) without a hearing exam, prescription, or fitting. Although this rule will improve access to hearing aid devices and lower the costs for those with hearing impairments, many critics are convinced the rule will do more harm than good.
In the recent years, there has been a significant increase in website accessibility lawsuits where plaintiffs claim that they cannot access websites because they are incompatible with assistive technology. Particularly, the number of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal courts in 2021 jumped 14% over 2020. This March, the U.S. Department of Justice published new guidance on website accessibility under ADA, however, businesses still struggle with understanding their compliance responsibilities.
On June 23rd, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that JUUL Labs, Inc., the notorious e-cigarette manufacturer, is ordered to cease distribution of their products in the United States. Since the company’s rise, one of the biggest pushes towards restricting JUUL products in stores across the nation has been fueled by discouraging youth vaping and the uncertainty regarding future health implications. The National Youth Tobacco Survey found that in 2021, approximately two million middle and high school students have reported using e-cigarettes. Meanwhile, more studies are surfacing regarding the adverse health effects that nicotine and e-cigarette products may have.
Daniel Bourgault Senior Editor Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, JD 2022 In 2020, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s office as to a federal investigation into the utility company for bribing a high-level elected official. In the agreement, ComEd agreed to pay a fine of $200 …
Patrick Gilsenan Senior Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Weekend JD Dec. 2022 The question of why it’d be legal to gamble in the stock market but not the Super Bowl has been made moot in recent years. In the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions and state legalization, sports betting is widespread and …
In 1998, Congress passed legislation to address vacancies created when a high-ranking official of an executive branch agency leaves their position. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) establishes a time limit of 210 days from the date of a vacancy for which a person may serve in an acting capacity in a position that is otherwise nominated by the President, with advice and consent of the Senate. The FVRA allows acting officials to serve beyond that time if there is a first or second nomination pending in the Senate for the vacancy. However, certain agencies have supplemental succession plans within their enabling statues that may supersede or complicate the FVRA.